Slashdot Mirror
The World Lost an Oklahoma-Sized Area of Forest In 2013, Satellite Data Show
merbs writes Oklahoma spans an area in the American South that stretches across almost 70,000 square miles. That's almost exactly the same area of global forest cover that was lost in a single year. High resolution maps from Global Forest Watch, tapping new data from a partnership between the University of Maryland and Google, show that 18 million hectares (69,500 square miles) of tree cover were lost from wildfires, deforestation, and development the year before last. The maps were created by synthesizing 400,000 satellite images collected by NASA's Landsat mission.
An Australian-led analysis of satellite data has found the amount of carbon sequestered in plants has risen by almost four billion tonnes since 2003, reflecting a surge in the biomass of global flora — possibly the first such increase since the Industrial Revolution..........
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com....
RTFA:
"The World Resource Institute, which coordinates Global Forest Watch, notes that the loss is both of the permanent, human-driven varietyâ"razing for agriculture and developmentâ"and the cyclical; from fires, logging, harvesting, and natural tree death. In the case of the latter, forests can take decades to be restored. In the former, they are gone for good"
I live near some of this area. There has been no fire or logging in the area and yet it is marked pink.
I'm also seeing a lot of areas that are pink that don't seem very likely to be involved in logging or forest fires. I mean, look at rural alaska.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
After wildfires, trees naturally re-grow.
They will eventually, but in the amount of time it takes for them to regrow, drastic environmental impacts may happen which destroy their habitat and make it no longer a fit for that particular plant. A simple example would be mountain flooding after a wildfire. When conifers burn, they will leave a sheet of wax on top of the dirt. When snow runoff season begins (or there are heavy rains, as seen in Colorado in 2013) the ground is not as good at sponging up the moisture and releasing it slowly down-river over the course of the season. Instead it beads off the surface and heads straight to the bottom, causing runoff to be more violent and increasing the risk of flash-flood events.
With those increased events, the habitat can be altered dramatically, possibly to the point where the trees that loved living there no longer find it suitable. Willows, dogwoods, cottonwoods, etc will all suffer as they are plants that would have increased risk (since they like living right next to the river). To compound the issue, there might be other plants that are now able to grow in areas where they couldn't before. The result of that is increased monoculture of forest species, which of course leads to increased risk of disease.
Can you begin to see the feedback loop? Increased disease, increased fire risk, increased flood risk, increased environment destruction, increased monoculture, and repeat.
The problem with wildfires now is that too many years of fire suppression has led to these situations where instead of smaller fires burning and replenishing areas periodically, we have massive fires that destroy massive areas and make it more difficult, if not impossible, for the area to recover.
Some deforestation is replaced with new trees, but not all.
I'm not sure I understand their definition of "deforestation". Is that only man-made, or does it include the work of insects, blight, and other maladies that wipe out huge swaths of forest?
Pretty much any time nowadays someone wants you to panic
Do you think that might be related to the increasing number of things that are totally fucked on our planet? I totally understand that hyperbole and sensationalism sell and that we are fed a steady diet of both, but don't throw the baby out of a moving car with a glass of water ... or whatever that saying is.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
The USA in general has more forest now then it did 100 years ago. The first industrial revolution was really hard on trees. For example, In NorCal there is a town called Guerneville. Next to the Safeway you can read a historical marker that explains it was once called "stumptown". Reason? Redwoods cut down to make railroad ties and other structures. Guerneville is now surrounded by 2nd growth redwood. It looks great, even if you know that it's not the amazing beauty that it must have been before.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?